Thread 213585019

If Tarantino hated it so much, why didn't he direct his own version?

>>213585019 (OP)
A messy movie. Oliver took his messy directing style to the highest levels. Platoon was good because he constrained himself.in that case.

>claims the film is a commentary on the media's portrayal and treatment of violence
>soundtrack tries to be cool one minute then moody the next
>characters remain over the top throughout the whole thing
>constantly flip-flops between cartoon violence and hard-edged realistic violence
Make up your fucking mind, Stone.

>>213585019 (OP)
Because natural born killers is already a remake of wild at heart

>>213585578
How can you be this filtered over a flick with the same kiddie pool depth as Fight Club

>>213586437
>filtered
Don't even go there. The execution is utter shit.

>>213586487
Filtered

>>213585019 (OP)
didn't he hate it because it was chronological or some shit

>>213586517
Fuck off, Stone. You couldn't direct traffic.

>>213586540
He hated the extra shit Stone added to the script. He went to see it with Juliette Lewis and they both fucked off during the sitcom bit.

>>213586543
I have millions, what do you have? Nothing. You sicken me. These fucking numbers and letters things piss me off too who do I pay to do these for me?

>>213586540
Stone altered the script extensively. Believe it or not Tarantino's version was more chronological than Stone's.
Tarantino's script was:
-Diner
-American Maniacs episode.
-interview
-prison riot and escape.
Everything else was added by Stone.

>>213585578
>>characters remain over the top throughout the whole thing
Yes, you dumb faggot, that's the point. The movie satirizes the crime couple trope and how people want outright criminals to get away with it and ride off into the happy ending just because their actions are attributed to some retarded social or political stance.
>i-it d-d-doesn't happen irl
I seem to remember some CEO of health insurance getting shot recently. How's it going? No fanfare, I hope?
Is this some kind of strain of autism, where retards think the movie has to skew the narrative so that stupid people wouldn't misinterpret the outcome as an endorsement?
>constantly flip-flops between cartoon violence and hard-edged realistic violence
Almost like the movie is simulating something in its sporadic tone
Almost like the portrayal of violence on tv is stylized to be constant channel switching with diametric tone shifts.

>>213586591
>what do you have?
I can comfortably say I had no involvement in the making of Natural Born Killers.

>>213585578
It's a commentary on zapping, rapidly switching between TV channels without paying much attention to any of them.

I feel like im the only person on the planet who thinks natural born killers is a complete piece of shit. Its filmed in a nauseating way, the acting is actually just bad, the writing is subpar, i mean from the very first scene this white trash chick is doing fucking kung fu on some guy in a bar with stock sound and ridiculous choreography, but none of it is played for laughs, im meant to think these characters are cool.

Its like what people who hate tarantino think tarantino is (yes I know he helped write it, but his original screenplay was decimated by the time it got to film) I cannot fucking believe the columbine shooters were so into this thing. There were so many cooler incel-core movies they could have been into but they chose the film that feels like one long Destroy all Humans cutscene? really?

>>213585731
>wild at heart
wikipedia doesn't mention it, so it's most likely only in your mind

>>213586624
>that's the point words words words
I fucking know that's the point, you stupid cunt. It doesn't fucking work though. It's a shit attempt at satire because of its drug-addled tonal inconsistencies.

>>213586647
The only people who hate it are the people who the satire is directed towards, like Tarantino.

>>213586585
Tarantula's a retard, that was a great bit.
>>213586606
Stone fucked up the pace between their arrest and the interview. Maybe the original script would have handled it better, but I wouldn't take that gamble.

>>213586726
>words words words
Sorry that more than two paragraphs is too taxing for your autism.
>because of its drug-addled tonal inconsistencies.
Maybe you should have read the words, words, words then.
I clearly explain what the tone shifts were simulating, quite successfully. Since they were clearly going for giant hyperbole.
Did your autistic nigger brain seriously think that they just randomly put in a sitcom scene just for the sake of it? How the fuck do you get filtered by Stone of all people.

>>213585731
Stylistically the film was actually inspired by a screening of Welles' unfinished The Othe Side of the Wind that Stone attended. Plot-wise it's a typical lovers on the run story, in fact NBK can be seen as a postmodernist update on the modernist Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

>>213586838
I read the words and they told me exactly what I already know about the film's intentions. What you're failing to pick up is that none of these explanations change a thing. It's a fucking terrible, terrible attempt at satire. It's hamfisted and inconsistent. Do you know which film did a better job of satirising violence and media while keeping its tone in check? RoboCop.

>>213586928
>heh, you know what movie was better? the best movie ever made, checkmate atheists!

>>213587092
>t.

i like this movie but tarrantino is allowed to hate it

>>213585019 (OP)
Maybe because he sold the screenplay and thus the movie rights for this intelectual property?

>>213585019 (OP)
Remember the story about how it wasn't computer games or edgy music that inspired two boys to shoot up kids at school, but this fucking movie.

>>213587161
Tarantino is a hack

>>213586928
>>I read the words
You clearly didn't, since you ignored them and again leaned into "tonal inconsistencies."
>It's a fucking terrible, terrible attempt at satire
It's just your retarded opinion. And you are clearly not even trying to be objective.
Coupled with your contradictory statements that tone shifts are not intentional or somehow not intended by the director, when it's clear that this caricature approach to how criminals are shown through the media lenses is what the movie is going for since frame one.
What the fuck does it have to do with Robocop? That's not Robocop's theme in any way, shape, or form, and the bits and pieces have never reached even 1% of the hyperbole NBK employs. That's like comparing it to Funny Games or fucking The Truman Show.
When NBK takes on the farce in the media and the lens, they are putting crime as their primary one. It is literally the foot that NBK puts forward and uses its hyperbole narrative design for. Where was an attempt to portray Boddicker as a fucking based giga chad, raging against machines in the media? Because that would be the equivalent to NBK. You clearly got filtered if this your frame of reference.
>Damn dude media being a bit cynical in a dystopian setting is totally the same as this
Autism.

>>213587398
You keep explaining what I already know. Save yourself the effort next time. It doesn't change what I think of it as a satire.
>What the fuck does it have to do with Robocop?
Both are films that use elevated levels of violence and negative portrayals of the media to satirise them. It isn't the main primary focus of RoboCop, but its a part of it. Verhoeven has even gone on record to say that the over the top squibs were his way of taking the piss out of US action cinema. I'm comparing execution, not narratives. NBK is all over the place, swinging back and forth from silly to grim and all other kinds of weird directions, so its satirical aspects lose focus and impact.
>b-but that's the point, reeee, filtered, autism
Doesn't matter if it is the point. Its stylistic choices were a creative fumble that landed like a wet fart. I bring up RoboCop because its a far better example of satire and what makes it work it that it does a far better job at balancing its tone.

>>213585578
It's a critique of mass media's utilization of violence and human misery for profit, not fictional violence. The movie is like going through the mind of a schizophrenic maniac (like Mickey), that's why there's mood swings and the editing is all over.
>>213585731
And Wild at Heart is a unofficial sequel to The Loveless, what's the point? And other than the story being about 2 lovers driving in the desert, they're nothing alike.

The sitcom scene was kino

NBK isn't that deep. It isn't that good either.

this film doesn't have a second of dead air it's so funny they leave nothing to hang

>>213587826
>You keep explaining what I already know
No, you clearly don't.
>swinging back and forth from silly to grim and all other kinds of weird directions, so its satirical aspects lose focus and impact.
I have to repeat for the 4th time by now that the immense hyperbolic tone of how the events are portrayed through the prism of genres of TV programs is the satire, and you keep pretending that sporadic tone is some kind of mistake.
>It isn't the main primary focus
And it's the sole focus of NBK. The Bonnie and Clyde story is just the framework; the main story is how their portrayals spiral them into stardom. It's not trying to be subtle in any way or form.
>Its stylistic choices were a creative fumble that landed like a wet fart.
Literally an opinion.
>I bring up RoboCop because its a far better example of satire
And I keep telling you that Robocop's portrayal of the media is not even remotely close to how NBK does it.
>balancing its tone.
Yep, as I keep saying above, you keep saying that you know what the movie was going for and in the same post keep writing evidence of how you don't understand that NBK satire was never remotely tangible or grounded. There isn't a scene in the movie that would need to be balance since it's all hyperbolized caricature drenched in absurdity.
Artificial sets, inconsistence lenses, over-exposed lighting, excessive tint. Whatever the fuck this. The fact that you think these are some kind of deviations and not the entirety of movie style is bizarre. Less bizarre than you trying to claim that understand it when you don't.

>>213586724
>wikipedia doesn't mention it, so it's most likely only in your mind
Do zoomers really...?

>>213585019 (OP)
I remember being memed into watching this shit by /tv/, good times

Because Queertino is a retard who wouldn't know what a good movie is if it hit him in the face. He has never made one.

>>213588076
>you keep pretending that sporadic tone is some kind of mistake.
Fucking hell, you're as thick as pig's shit. I know it's completely intentional. What I said is that it doesn't work as a satire. It fails in all aspects and I've made it clear that its execution is the reason why. If you still fail to understand this then you're beyond help.

>>213586606
did the Tom Sizemore character exist in the Tarantino version?

>>213588206
don't try watching any other Oliver Stone films from the 90s because you must be a faggot Zoomer

>>213588466
Yeah but we only see him at the prison from what I remember. The shit with him killing some hooker and being obsessed with Mallory was Stone iirc. It's been years since I read it.

>>213588348
>I know it's completely intentional.
>swinging back and forth from silly to grim
No, you don't. There are no grim scenes in the entire movie. If you seriously think any of the kills are presented in any way but in the most absurd framework possible, you are senile or need to rewatch it. Everything about it is cockamamie. There is nothing to balance farcical bullshit against. It's vaudeville from the first scene until the credits.
>What I said is that it doesn't work as a satire
>It fails in all aspects
Nigger, it was literally prophetic. OJ trail basically mirrors the absolutely insane investment people put into stanning for the murderer because it was presented in the way that would tingle their politics, just like in the movie. NBK just wasn't about race.
>If you still fail to understand this
Oh, I understand your opinion, and I also understand that you lack arguments to actually defend it; hence, this pathetic display of pretending that repeating "it just doesn't work because of Robocop or smt" passes as argumentation.

It's one of my favourite movies. Don't get why people dislike it so much. They seem to be contrarians as their explanations doesn't hold up.

>>213589531
Some people demand a movie have a defined message and don't believe that something just being enjoyable is enough. Stone was just kind of making up NBK as he went along, and it's a kinetic exciting experience. I absolutely grew up as a channel surfer during the early 90s and love that that's the vibe the movie has.

it's an ok flick, the casting choices are kinda weird (except the main girl)

>>213589613
NBK has defined theme.
>Media profiteering from true crime shit by sensationalizing to the point of making a murderer into a celebrity are all faggots. But what is there to do when this is what sells and people get devoted to the macabre as if it's just another show on TV
It's not subtle about it, it's not groundbreaking, and it's not particularly insightful by today's standard, but it is a unique and eccentric presentation. Stone's lucky he has his own producers because I don't think anyone would be able to drag this past the studio to the release otherwise.

>>213589851
Well that's kind of what I mean, NBK says "look at this crazy shit" but has no idea what to do about it, so I think the people that get actually angry about the movie are reacting to that. They think "why even bring it up if you don't know how to fix it? Stop wasting my time "
There are still a lot of people who expect moral guidance from media instead of just the opportunity to explore ideas.

>>213588601
>There are no grim scenes in the entire movie.
Prison riot is full of it. You may need to rewatch it yourself.
>Oh, I understand your opinion
>it just doesn't work because of Robocop
Yeah nah, you don't. Continuing enjoying the movie. It's still a piece of shit.

If you think NBK is stupid, pic related makes it look like a masterpiece.

>>213590344
Stephen Dorff, killing it since he was like 8 and still going. What a guy

>>213590175
>Prison riot is full of it.
>this tinted absurdity of shlock action movie with them gunning down dozen of people while the film crew comically stumbling behind them with uncoordinated extras as the rock music is played with laughably hanged guards by the wall on impromptu meat hooks is actually grim, no-nonsense, guys because it has like blood and guns
>and RDJ going bazinga himself and starting shooting people laughing ravingly despite being the hostage? yeah that's totally hecking realistic and grim tone of the movie not the absurd image of being infected by preposterous tv violence around him.
Actual fucking autism. Watch the movie, negro. Do not say again that you understand the NBKs tone. You're borderline trolling at this point if this is what you perceive as grim. Or did you think the b&w scenes were grim? The scenes of the warden preposterously talking about how this is the best prison there is with the most secure protocols 10 minutes prior to outright pandemonium? This cheeky shit passes as grim and serious to you?
>Yeah nah, you don't.
>as he verbally confirms that he think that the movie presents any of it's violence in a realistic way or grim way
>confirming once again that HE DIDN'T understand that the movie is ridicule absurdity misshapen through a lenses of TV
Your entire argument is that Robocop has better satire, when you clearly do not understand what and how NBK is satirizing.
>Continuing enjoying the movie.
I would if you weren't trying to put the last word in when you clearly ran out of arguments several posts ago, with snark being your remaining armament.
>It's still a piece of shit.
Nice opinion. It would be cool of you could actually defend it. But alas you somehow got filtered.

>>213590714
At this point I'm convinced he could say cherries are red and you'd start some shit about it. Go to bed.

>>213590752
You know what, he's the one I'm mad at, not you, my mistake

>>213590773
Oh no wait, it IS you
Go to hell fag

>>213590804
they're both fags.

>>213590752
>>213590773
>>213590804
>>213590828
>

i thought the wedding scene was really sweet.

it's literally perfect

the only thing this movie lacks is a pair of big natural titties

>>213585389
I kinda like the schizophrenic direction. It makes it feel like a fever dream.

>>213591523
Is the coming back who hurts

>>213585019 (OP)
I never liked this movie because I always had an intense dislike of Juliette Lewis. I think I've only seen it once.

I remember waiting forever to see this because it was always totally checked out on the Netflix DVD delivery thing. Then when I finally got to see it, it was forgettable and underwhelming.

This movie sucks because it essentially rewards Mick and Mallory's evil and rewards them for the acts they commit. Which you could say on some ironic level is a reflection of how evil people in real life can get away with their evil, but at the end of the day in real life thats just the thing. Evil people have to escape from their deeds run from punishment, spend their lives on the run or in fear. Even people who "got away with it" had shitty lives afterwards because they were terrible like the original night stalker or pedo billionaries who live hollow lives because no one cares about them for any reason other than their money. But in the movie Micky and Mallory are basically allowed to live a perfect happy ending where they settle down into normal society and have children. Because apparantley they can just turn off the years of abuse and trauma that caused them to become murderous maniacs in the first place. The movie is evil because it basically says that evil is something you can just switch off and have no consequences for, so as a result there is no real reason why anyone should strive to be a good person because you end up getting shot by a maniac who escapes and lives a healthy and happy life afterwards. The movie lacks a proper "hero" so to speak and so lacks an alternative and instead just revels in nihilism and cynicism as a response to societal alienation and abuse.

>>213585578
so it's just Hotline Miami the movie then?

>>213585019 (OP)
Tarantino thinks every line he writes is sacred and doesn't like anyone messing with it; yes, even scenes where characters babble endlessly about the trash TV shows he watched growing up.